This opinion is subject to
further editing.If published, the
official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official
Reports.

A party may file with the
Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of
Appeals.SeeWis. Stat. § 808.10 and Rule 809.62.

Appeal No.

2012AP1133

Cir. Ct. No.2011CF34

STATE OF WISCONSIN

IN COURT OF
APPEALS

DISTRICT III

State of Wisconsin,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

Jack E. Minniecheske,

Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL
from a judgment of the circuit court for Shawano County:JAMES
R. HABECK, Judge.Affirmed.

¶1CANE, J.[1] Jack
Minniecheske, pro se, appeals a judgment of conviction for pointing a firearm
at another.[2]He argues: the State improperly relied on a 1997
felony conviction to charge him with felon in possession of a firearm; the
court should have suppressed the victim impact statement; and he should be
allowed to withdraw his no contest plea to pointing a firearm at another.We reject Minniecheske’s arguments and
affirm.[3]

¶2On September 17, 2010, the State charged Minniecheske with
pointing a firearm at another.On February
3, 2011, the State amended the complaint and added a count of felon in
possession of a firearm.To support the
felon in possession of a firearm charge, the State alleged that Minniecheske had
been convicted in 1997 of felony fleeing/eluding an officer.Ultimately, Minniecheske pled no contest to
pointing a firearm at another and the felon in possession of a firearm charge
was dismissed and read in.The court
sentenced Minniecheske to a $250 fine and costs.

¶3On appeal, Minniecheske first objects to the dismissed and
read-in felon in possession of a firearm charge.He asserts the State’s reliance on the 1997
felony conviction to support the charge was improper because the assistant
district attorney in the 1997 case had a conflict of interest.Minniecheske contends that the assistant
district attorney should have disqualified herself from prosecuting that case,
and he requests that we vacate the 1997 felony conviction.

¶4Minniecheske’s 1997 felony conviction, however, is not the
subject of this appeal.This appeal is
limited to Minniecheske’s 2011 conviction.We will not address Minniecheske’s assertion that the 1997 conviction
should be vacated as a result of his perceived conflict of interest.

¶5Next, as far as Minniecheske’s objection to the State’s reliance
on the 1997 conviction to support its amendment of the complaint, Minniecheske’s
1997 conviction remained of record and was unreversed at the time the State
amended the complaint. The State’s
reliance on the 1997 conviction to support the felon in possession of a firearm
charge, which was ultimately dismissed and read in, was proper.

¶6Minniecheske also objects to the victim impact
statement.After Minniecheske pled no
contest to pointing a firearm at another, the State filed the victim impact
statement in the form of a two-page letter from the victim’s mother.The mother asked for a harsh sentence and
stated Minniecheske’s actions had interfered with her son’s schooling and his
ability to feel safe.

¶7Minniecheske asserts the court should have suppressed the
victim impact statement because it was “frivolous” and the victim stole Minniecheske’s
property.Additionally, he argues that,
because the court failed to suppress the victim impact statement, he should be
permitted to withdraw his no contest plea.

¶8Wisconsin Stat.
§ 950.04(1v)(m) gives victims of crimes the right “to provide statements
concerning sentencing, disposition, or parole.”In this case, the State properly submitted the victim impact statement pursuant
to § 950.04(1v)(m), and the court properly reviewed it.See id.Moreover, given Minniecheske’s sentence, a fine and costs, there is no
indication in the record that the court sentenced Minniecheske more harshly because
of the allegations in the victim impact statement.

¶9Finally, Minniecheske is not entitled to withdraw his no
contest plea based on the submission of the victim impact statement.To withdraw a plea after sentencing,
Minniecheske must show, by clear and convincing evidence, that withdrawal of
the plea is necessary to correct a manifest injustice.See State v. Kivioja, 225 Wis. 2d 271,
286, 592 N.W.2d 220 (1999).The court’s
review of the victim impact statement does not amount to a manifest injustice.

By the Court.—Judgment affirmed.

This
opinion will not be published.See Wis.
Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)4.

[1]This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 752.31(2).All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are
to the 2009-10 version unless otherwise noted.